Free will or no free will?

[mondar]

mondar,

This is what I had in mind when I asked my previous question:

Man is created in the image of God which includes the ability to choose to do right or wrong, to follow God or rebel. This is seen right in the beginning of Scripture when Adam and Eve, not knowing evil only good, still choose to rebel against God.

In Joshua we have:

Jos 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Throughout the entirety of Scripture man is called to make the decision to turn to God. If man has no free choice in the matter, then all these calls to decide whom we will serve are meaningless.

I maintain that since man was created to choose between following God and not following God, that that is intrinsic to our nature. God has given us the ability to choose and expects us to do so when confronted with the truth of the Christ's death and resurrection. God desires all to be saved and woos us but the choice is ours.

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Phi 2:13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

I also commented on the issue of "choice" in my previous post.

Regarding the previous discussion:

You missed my point on this. It is the order of operation that I take issue with. You stated: "when God changes our nature, we come running to him. We choose him not because we are dragged, but because he changes our natures to desire him." This is the reverse order which is why I asked for Scriptural proof and which your "proof" does not address. You stated that we are regenerated prior to salvation, but that is not correct.

Free, If you are looking for the very words "regeneration comes before faith," it obviously does not occur. Of course to demand such a statement is silly and very poor theology. I would remind you there is no verse in the bible that states "the trinity is true." Much of our theology is derived from implication, not direct statements. Titus 3:5 does in fact imply that we are not responsible for our own regeneration.

Concerning the order, notice John 3. Nicodeums asks a question about regeneration (born again). Now the question is not about the order of events but the question is about how.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

This would have been a perfect opportunity for Christ to talk about faith. Christ could have said "believe and you will be born again." Christ answers the question based upon the sovereignty of God.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Why is it that we do not know where it comes from and where it goes? If faith precedes regeneration, we know where it comes from and where it goes. It comes from faith, and it goes from faith.

I think the fact that regeneration precedes faith can also be seen if one digs into the meaning of the term. We would ask what is "regeneration." The common answer is that it is a change in nature. What change? What is changed in our nature? How do you define that change in human nature that we call regeneration?

I think Romans 6 is a definitional passage. The term regeneration does not occur in Romans 6, but the concept of a change in nature is there.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
Rom 6:18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.
Rom 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification.
Rom 6:20 For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in regard of righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit then had ye at that time in the things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life.

I think I have highlighted the word "servants" every time in this passage. It is the term "doulos" (bond slave). Our sin nature has absolute mastery over our nature before salvation. So then, any spiritual decisions come from the master of our nature, our sin nature. So then, faith without regeneration would postulate that our master ... sin, led us to faith in God.

I am defining regeneration in this way... we are no longer in complete subjection to our sin nature. This can be seen in romans 6:18 we are freed from the sin nature. This freedom allows us do make righteous decisions. Only after our regeneration are we "free" to please God with good decisions.

Ephesians 2:1 talks about our regeneration. We were once so sold in sin, so spiritually dead, that it took an act of God to make us alive.
Eph 2:1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
Spiritual death in Eph 2:1 is talking about our inability to please God. There is nothing we can do that is spiritually good and pleasing to God when we are dead.

To say that we cannot please God normally, but can please God with our faith would voilate Heb 11:6.
Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; ....

So then, if you put faith before regeneration, you have a person completely spiritually dead, who is a total slave to his sin nature and cannot do anything but please his sin nature; this person turns around and pleases God.

I completely understand Calvinsts accusations against Arminians. They accuse Arminians of not believing we are dead in sin, but merely sick in sin. They see in Arminianism a denial of sin nature, or a denial of total depravity. Without regeneration preceding faith, man must be at least partially righteous without the efforts of God so that he can believe.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

They depart from the faith, but faith did not depart from them. They never had faith. I doubt you see the difference between departing from the faith, and faith departing from them. I am not merely playing with words, there is a very important concept here.

2Pe 2:20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
2Pe 2:21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

They knew the way of righteousness, but did they believe that way? They were a part of that way of righteousness because they were part of the faith, but again the faith was not a part of them.

By the way, I dont want to go into detail, but the men in 2 Peter 2 are the same identical men as mentioned by Jude.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in privily, even they who were of old written of beforehand unto this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

The similarities in context between Jude and 2Peter 2 can easily be used to demonstrate that these are the same men.

To say that it is up to us to choose whether or not we will follow Christ in no way means that we earn our salvation. I agree that salvation "is 100% the gift of God", but gifts can be rejected. Gifts are not gifts if there is no choice whether or not one wants to accept it.

And unbelievers with a nature of rebellion and hatred of God will reject any gift by nature. While I recognize that you "say" that you believe salvation is "100% the gift of God" this is the issue. If you have a synergistic salvation that is by the cooperation of Gods effort to offer the gift, and your effort to receive the gift, you still have a salvation by your efforts in some way. If on the other hand, I am right, then even my efforts were only the result of Gods actions. If my faith is given by God, and part of the gift of salvation, only then is it 100% the grace of God.

Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

This leads to the bigger problem for your position: if we have no free choice in the matter, then neither do the unsaved have a choice. This makes God out to be unjust in that he will punish people out of no fault of their own. This is a great injustice and is inconsistent with the nature of God.

I thought I addressed this before. If I am mistaken, I can do it again. This is the same exact question Paul addresses in Romans 9.

Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?

How can any unbeliever withstand the will of God? Paul answers that question in romans 9. He says in verse 20
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?

Romans 9 must be a garbled confusing mess to you if you ask the question you do. The context starts in Romans 9:6, but Paul introduces the concept of the election of Israel in Romans 9:11. Later in Romans 9 he is expaining why some Israelites are not elect and God is still righteous.

If you want an answer to that question, we would have to discuss Romans 9. Would you be interested in discussing Romans 9 in great detail?

 

[Drew]

I do not think that Romans 3:11 effectively refutes the free will position. Using a claim that "no one seeks after God" to trump the assertion that an element of free will is involved in the process of salvation seems to me to involve "reading in" things that are simply not there. I think that the claim "no one seeks after God" in no way rules out the hypothesis that God tugs at the hearts of we wayward souls and some of us then freely accept the offer of salvation. Can anyone explain exactly why the fact that people do not seek after God implies that they cannot recognize and freely accept a gift of salvation from a God who, realizing that we are not seeking, then makes himself known to us?

Let's say that I do not seek after knowledge of quantum mechanics. I have no interest in it at all. Then some pointy-headed geek comes alongs and grabs me by the shoulders and "forcibly" explains to me why I should indeed care about quantum mechanics (I would find it hard to imagine how he would do that, but that is beside the point). I seen no reason to believe that my initial inclination to not be interested in quantum mechanics renders me incapable, as a "free" agent, of being convinced that my previous disinterest should be abandoned.

 

[Free]

We do what we are led to do, Free. Our choices come from our least stressful option. So they aren't "free" choices. For example, a battered wife cannot leave her husband until her fear of her husband is stronger than her fear of leaving. So she's a prisoner of her own fears.

Being led has nothing to do with whether or not a choice is free.

Yes, God by leaving the unregenerate in their sins (passive) and not intervening in their lives (actively), does decide who is a vessel of mercy and who is a vessel of wrath.

2:3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
2:4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

If God desires that all people be saved, why wouldn't he intervene? Why wouldn't the Holy Spirit draw all men to Christ?

If the above verse is true, then why aren't all people saved?

Free, You continue to say over and over again that if we are called to make a choice that this proves that we have ability to choose God. I might tell a bug to make me a new car, and call it to be a worker in my car factory. I might even threaten to crush it if it refuses.

This is not a good analogy since we are not on the same level as an ant in relation to God. We are made in God's image and heve been given self-awareness and reason as well as the ability to communicate with God.

John 6:44 in no way at all proves that or even implies that after the Fall we lost our free will, our ability to choose. Since you are set on using this passage, let's take a look at it in the wider context of Scripture:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

Does "all" mean all? It would seem to me that God does draw all men, which is consistent with his desiring that all people be saved. John 6:44 simply states that the Father draws people to Christ, nothing is stated that all such people are saved - that is adding to what the verse is stating based on the presumption that man has no choice in the matter.

Rom 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Who made the vessels of wrath? Do you think the vessels of wrath are cosmic boo boos by some schizophrenic potter? Where do the vessels of wrath come from?

I think this verse is too often quoted to support a position that I don't think it is actually advocating.

That's all I have time for since I am at work.

 

[Drew]

The following material challenges the notion that the John 6 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" text supports irresistable grace:

We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

What exactly does “all that†in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40.

Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 – they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word "for" in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The "all that" in verse 39 whom the Father "has given" to Jesus is none other than "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going.

If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the "all that" in verse 39, the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that "all who freely come to believe in Jesus" are given to the Son by the Father. The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus' offer of salvation.

This text does not support an "irresistable grace" reading to the exclusion of other interpretations.

 

[mondar]

Free wrote,

John 6:44 in no way at all proves that or even implies that after the Fall we lost our free will, our ability to choose. Since you are set on using this passage, let's take a look at it in the wider context of Scripture:

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

Notice how you are reading John 12:32 back into John 6. This is typical methodology of those who believe in free will. You take two separate comments in two completely different context and equate them. John 6:44 is about the drawing ministry of the Father. John 12 is the ministry of the son drawing all to the cross. There is no drawing men to faith in John 12. In John 6:44 the ones drawn by the father are the ones who come to Christ.

Does "all" mean all? It would seem to me that God does draw all men, which is consistent with his desiring that all people be saved. John 6:44 simply states that the Father draws people to Christ, nothing is stated that all such people are saved - that is adding to what the verse is stating based on the presumption that man has no choice in the matter.

The people in John 6:44 are not saved? Gasp! What do you think the last phrase means "and I will raise him up on the last day."

Free, concerning the term "all" in the context of John 6. You completely twist verse 37. You seem to equate "All that the Father gives" to be "the Father gives all." If you fail to see the difference between those two statements, no amount of words I say will get you to understand John 6.

If all are given in verse 37, then all will "come to me" (Christ). If this is all mankind, then we have universalism. Universalism or election are the only 2 possible readings of this text. There are no other possible readings.


The same thing happens in verse 39. The use of the word "all" in verse 39 is the same. Christ will not loose any of the "all" in verse 39. Christ will keep "all" in verse 39 by his power and well not loose any. So then, if all men in the whole world are given to Christ, and he looses not even one, then again we have universalism.

The same for verse 40. If verse 40 refers to all mankind, then all mankind believes and has "everlasting life."

"No man can come" That phrase is so crystal clear in speaking about the inability of man, that few Arminians bother to even discuss that phrase. Most simply ignore it. Some Arminians use isogetical techniques to turn what this passage is saying into an opposite meaning. In other words the phrase "no man can come to me" cannot mean no man can come to me because this scriptural statement is not in accord with Arminian Theology. I am curious to see what your reaction will be, will you ignore the scriptural statement, or will you say that "no man can come to me" does not mean no man can come to me?

 

[mondar]

The following material challenges the notion that the John 6 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me" text supports irresistable grace:

We start with the text of Jonh 6:37-40 as rendered in the NASB:

37. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

38. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

What exactly does “all that†in v37 and v. 39 refer to?

Calvinists will identify the "all that" in verses 37 and 39 as "those whom, in his great love, he elected long ago to save, and cannot help but be drawn into the Kingdom." We shall see that this is not the only possible conclusion when we consider the possible meanings of the "all that" found in verse 39 in light of the the content of verse 40, taking into account some significant structural similarities between v 39 and v. 40.

Note the parallel structure of verses 39 and 40 – they each have 3 clauses that map almost perfectly from one verse to the other. They both have the same A-B-C structure.

First, we should note the connective word "for" in verse 40. This establishes a logical connection between these two verses, suggesting an act of clarification on Jesus’ behalf. The "all that" in verse 39 whom the Father "has given" to Jesus is none other than "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him" as per verse 40. You can probably see where I am going.

If we allow verse 40 to be used as a clarifying referent to disambiguate the "all that" in verse 39,

There is nothing to "disambiguate." The only reason some might think verse 39 is ambiguous is because they dont like what it is saying. Some might want salvation to depend upon our own efforts, but verse 39 is not talking about our efforts, but the efforts of Christ. Surprise! Shock! Arminians much prefer to keep themselves by their own righteousness, Calvinist recognize the power of Christ when he says he will "lose nothing."

the 2 verses taken together can be seen to be consistent with a reading that "all who freely come to believe in Jesus" are given to the Son by the Father.

This is very twisted. It is not what the passage says at all. The order of presentation according to your post is that
1-----we believe,
2-----and that after God figures out who will believe,
3-----then they are given.

In verse 37 the order is very specific.
1--The Father gives
2--We come to Christ (This is faith)

Verse 37 is reversed by Arminians. They see it as "Those who come to me, will be given by the Father." The order of the text is the exact opposite in my bible, it reads "All that the Father gives to me shall come to me."

Verse 40 was not put in the text to "disambiguate" verse 39. It was put in the text to explain that the ones given to Christ and the ones who come to him (have faith), will be the ones who will have everlasting life.

I guess I will never agree with the sovereignty of man and the impotence of God.

The people that are "given" are given in their state of already having freely (without an irresistable "tug") accepted Jesus' offer of salvation.

This text does not support an "irresistable grace" reading to the exclusion of other interpretations.

There is no possibility to read the text any other way then irresistable grace. It is the only possibility in this text.

 

[Drew]

There is nothing to "disambiguate." The only reason some might think verse 39 is ambiguous is because they dont like what it is saying. Some might want salvation to depend upon our own efforts, but verse 39 is not talking about our efforts, but the efforts of Christ. Surprise! Shock! Arminians much prefer to keep themselves by their own righteousness, Calvinist recognize the power of Christ when he says he will "lose nothing."

Verse 39 is indeed ambiguous in the specific sense that when we read it, we need to ask the further question: Who, exactly, is the 'all that' that is referred to in the following statement:

This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

All I mean when I say that the verse is ambigious is that it is not immediately clear who the 'all that' are. That we have this further question to answer is really beyond dispute. So the text is indeed ambiguous in this sense. I have provided an argument as to why one could understand the "all that" to refer to those who freely accept a gift of salvation. I will respond to your argument later in a subsequent post.

If your argument is good, it will stand on its own merits as any argument should.

The use of a claim that those who do not share your position on this text "don't like what it is saying" is not really helpful and is obviously a claim that you will not be able to support.

 

[MarkT]

I do not think that Romans 3:11 effectively refutes the free will position. Using a claim that "no one seeks after God" to trump the assertion that an element of free will is involved in the process of salvation seems to me to involve "reading in" things that are simply not there. I think that the claim "no one seeks after God" in no way rules out the hypothesis that God tugs at the hearts of we wayward souls and some of us then freely accept the offer of salvation. Can anyone explain exactly why the fact that people do not seek after God implies that they cannot recognize and freely accept a gift of salvation from a God who, realizing that we are not seeking, then makes himself known to us?

Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven as being like a net. It captures everyone who believes in him, both the good and the bad. At the end of the age the angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous. Matthew 13: 47-50. So you're not caught in the net by your will. Again, to reinforce this same understanding, when the invited guests don't show up, the servant is sent out to bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame and then he is sent out to compel people to come in. Luke 14:23. The same idea is in Matthew 22:10; as many as are found, both the good and the bad, are gathered into the kingdom. The ones not wearing the garment of righteousness are tossed out.

So to say you chose rightly completely misses the point. You will say to Jesus, "I'm right because I chose rightly". But Jesus will say, "You chose rightly but you didn't understand my words and the truth isn't in you and that's what makes it right in my Fathers eyes."

 

[MarkT]

Only God's children understand God's words. They enter the kingdom by Christ, not by the backdoor of choosing in their futile imagination.

 

[Drew]

I believe that I may have a response to mondar's post about the "sequencing" in John 6:37 and its implications re the topic at hand. This response is based on the arguments of another person (I generally do not like to "borrow" other people's material). However, in this case I hope to provide extracts or a re-working of this material. I will say that I find mondar's argument about Jn 6:37 to be very challenging indeed. We will see if the counterargument that I have found has any merit.

There may be a day or two delay before I post this material.

 

[unred typo]

Mondar wrote:

Verse 40 was not put in the text to "disambiguate" verse 39. It was put in the text to explain that the ones given to Christ and the ones who come to him (have faith), will be the ones who will have everlasting life.

I guess I will never agree with the sovereignty of man and the impotence of God.
………….
There is no possibility to read the text any other way then irresistable grace. It is the only possibility in this text.

There are other ways to read this text. For instance, I read this in the light of the rest of the chapter that pertains to it. ‘Seeing the Son’ in verse 40 is linked to ‘believing in the Son.’ Believing in the Son is explained by verse 63 and 68. Eating his flesh, verse 56, is taking his words to heart, and making them a part of our very being and our actions, just as our food is used to fuel our physical activities. His words fuel our behavior. Following the words of Christ and doing the works he taught is the means by which we are saved.

If you believe in Buddha, you believe what he taught and follow it. If you believe in Marx, you believe in what he taught and follow it. If you believe in Christ, you believe what he taught and follow it. The ones who have faith in Jesus’ teaching will be saved by doing the works that he taught. He plainly states it is by these works we will be judged to determine our eternal fate. If we follow him and live by his words to the best of our ability, he promised to cleanse us from all unrighteousness in his precious blood.

Man is only sovereign over his own will. ‘We are gods’ over our own fates by what we choose to do and the choices we wish to make whether or not we are able to accomplish them. If God has ordained that man will be held accountable for his own choices, no one can reasonably call this soverein act to give man free will the “impotence of God.â€Â

 

[Vic C.]

I believe that I may have a response to mondar's post about the "sequencing" in John 6:37 and its implications re the topic at hand. This response is based on the arguments of another person (I generally do not like to "borrow" other people's material). However, in this case I hope to provide extracts or a re-working of this material. I will say that I find mondar's argument about Jn 6:37 to be very challenging indeed. We will see if the counterargument that I have found has any merit.

There may be a day or two delay before I post this material.

Drew, don't over analyze it. It's a two part statement. The translators knew that, hence the comma separation.

 

[MarkT]

In Joshua we have:

Jos 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Throughout the entirety of Scripture man is called to make the decision to turn to God. If man has no free choice in the matter, then all these calls to decide whom we will serve are meaningless.

I maintain that since man was created to choose between following God and not following God, that that is intrinsic to our nature. God has given us the ability to choose and expects us to do so when confronted with the truth of the Christ's death and resurrection. God desires all to be saved and woos us but the choice is ours.

The choice was between God and the gods of your fathers. It wasn't between following God or not. But that was in the OT. In the light of Christ we learn God is our Father. For us it isn't a choice as much as it is a revelation.

 

[MarkT]

Verse 39 is indeed ambiguous in the specific sense that when we read it, we need to ask the further question: Who, exactly, is the 'all that' that is referred to in the following statement:

This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

There's nothing ambiguous about it. John 6:35-40 Jesus says that, "all that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out." It's stating a fact. They will come to him and Jesus won't cast him who comes to him out. And it's a fact that he won't lose anyone who is given to him because, as he says, it's the will of him who sent me. 'All' refers to all the men he is given. If a hundred men are given to him, then 'all' refers to all one hundred. If a thousand men are given to him, then 'all' refers to all one thousand. And Jesus goes on to say that since it is our Father's will that every one (notice 'one' is stressed. It's not everyone but every one) who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life (that's the promise), Jesus will raise up this man (the one who comes to him as previously determined) at the last day.

 

[unred typo]

MarkT wrote:

There's nothing ambiguous about it. John 6:35-40 Jesus says that, "all that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out." It's stating a fact. They will come to him and Jesus won't cast him who comes to him out. And it's a fact that he won't lose anyone who is given to him because, as he says, it's the will of him who sent me. 'All' refers to all the men he is given. If a hundred men are given to him, then 'all' refers to all one hundred. If a thousand men are given to him, then 'all' refers to all one thousand. And Jesus goes on to say that since it is our Father's will that every one (notice 'one' is stressed. It's not everyone but every one) who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life (that's the promise), Jesus will raise up this man (the one who comes to him as previously determined) at the last day.

There is a tiny but crucial flaw in your reasoning. Jesus is speaking in a private conversation to a specific group and during a very limited time that will end with his being delivered over to be killed. God is in control of the circumstances by which this will occur and is moving people and situations to bring his death to pass just as he had planned and predicted it.

There would be many who were looking for the Messiah to come but only a few were given the privilege to know Jesus was this promised one BEFORE his death. The rest were blinded to the truth of who Christ really was and sealed until the time AFTER his death when they would be awakened to this fact.

If this were not so, the masses would have made him king and the Pharisees would have been overwhelmed by the crowds that they feared. The prophesy that God established by this hidden strategy was the ‘suffering servant rejected and despised,’ whom the majority of people were not expecting. Not even the demons were able to understand that the plan God ordained was for the Son to be the ransom for the sins of mankind. It was a hidden mystery. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Now you are taking these statements made locally and applying them globally. It makes for very twisted and strange theology. It only seems normal because it is such a wide spread and accepted error. Jesus was really stressing that these who have been purposefully blinded by God would not be forgotten, those who had been given roles in the fulfillment of the prophesies would be used and furthermore, God was in control and he knew what he was doing.

 

[MarkT]

There is a tiny but crucial flaw in your reasoning. Jesus is speaking in a private conversation to a specific group and during a very limited time that will end with his being delivered over to be killed. God is in control of the circumstances by which this will occur and is moving people and situations to bring his death to pass just as he had planned and predicted it.

Ok

There would be many who were looking for the Messiah to come but only a few were given the privilege to know Jesus was this promised one BEFORE his death. The rest were blinded to the truth of who Christ really was and sealed until the time AFTER his death when they would be awakened to this fact.

Twelve were chosen to be his disciples. You say the rest were blinded and sealed until after his death? I know everyone fell away except the disciples. I don't recall anyone who was sealed until after his death?

If this were not so, the masses would have made him king and the Pharisees would have been overwhelmed by the crowds that they feared. The prophesy that God established by this hidden strategy was the ‘suffering servant rejected and despised,’ whom the majority of people were not expecting. Not even the demons were able to understand that the plan God ordained was for the Son to be the ransom for the sins of mankind. It was a hidden mystery. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I wouldn't disagree with you on the last part. But let's not get carried away with 'what if' and imagine we know what would have happened 'if'. We are talking about what did happen.

Now you are taking these statements made locally and applying them globally. It makes for very twisted and strange theology. It only seems normal because it is such a wide spread and accepted error. Jesus was really stressing that these who have been purposefully blinded by God would not be forgotten, those who had been given roles in the fulfillment of the prophesies would be used and furthermore, God was in control and he knew what he was doing.

It only seems that way I suspect because the Trinity concept doesn't let you see it. The ones who saw him and heard him couldn't see him because of their teachers. They were following blind guides. They saw the Messenger but they couldn't see the message.

The statements, as you refer to them, are the teachings of God. They are the words of the new covenant. It makes no difference that the statements were made locally and then preached to all the world. The promise is eternal. The teaching is true. Jesus said, 'it's my Father's will and it follows, I will do it.' The ones who saw him and heard him and who did not believe in him, didn't know him because they followed false teachers and that's why God wouldn't let them see him.

Jesus is the bread of life and the teaching is true because the Teacher is true. His words are spirit and life.

I agree everything happened according to prophecy according to the will of God.

 

[jgredline]

There has been much spoken against the doctrine of what is called free will by persons who seem not to have understood the term.

Will is a free principle. Free will is as absurd as bound will: it is not will if it be not free; and if it be bound, it is no will. Volition is essential to the being of the soul, and to all rational and intellectual beings.

This is the most essential discrimination between matter and spirit. Matter can have no choice, spirit has. Ratiocination is essential to intellect; and from these volition is inseparable. God uniformly treats man as a free agent; and on this principle the whole of divine revelation is constructed, as is also the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. If a man be forced to believe, he believes not at all: it is the forcing power that believes, not the machine forced. If he be forced to obey, it is the forcing power that obeys; and he, as a machine, shows only the effect of this irresistible force.

If a man be incapable of willing good and willing evil, he is incapable of being saved as a rational being; and if he acts only under an overwhelming compulsion, he is as incapable of being damned. In short, this doctrine reduces him either to a punctum stans, which by the vis inertiae is incapable of being moved, but as acted upon by foreign influence; or, as an intellectual being, to nonentity.

Clarke, A. Systematic Theology

 

[MarkT]

There has been much spoken against the doctrine of what is called free will by persons who seem not to have understood the term.

Will is a free principle. Free will is as absurd as bound will: it is not will if it be not free; and if it be bound, it is no will. Volition is essential to the being of the soul, and to all rational and intellectual beings.

This is the most essential discrimination between matter and spirit. Matter can have no choice, spirit has. Ratiocination is essential to intellect; and from these volition is inseparable. God uniformly treats man as a free agent; and on this principle the whole of divine revelation is constructed, as is also the doctrine of future rewards and punishments. If a man be forced to believe, he believes not at all: it is the forcing power that believes, not the machine forced. If he be forced to obey, it is the forcing power that obeys; and he, as a machine, shows only the effect of this irresistible force.

If a man be incapable of willing good and willing evil, he is incapable of being saved as a rational being; and if he acts only under an overwhelming compulsion, he is as incapable of being damned. In short, this doctrine reduces him either to a punctum stans, which by the vis inertiae is incapable of being moved, but as acted upon by foreign influence; or, as an intellectual being, to nonentity.

Well it's the spirit of a man that lets him understand so let's start with the spirit. God sends a blind spirit, the man can not see. He doesn't understand. He acts according to his nature, wandering around after false teachings, never finding the knowledge of God. Why would God send an evil spirit? The answer is this man was created for destruction. When God wants his anger to be seen, he puts it in this man. Why? To make his sin more evident; so evident that the sons of God turn away from him in horror and they turn to God. The sons of God cry out to God saying, 'God save us from your anger!' They can not even look at the man. Man is the perfect way for God to express himself because man is made in the image of God. God could put the spirit of jealousy in this man. He could put it in a rock or a tree or water or a cloud, but his jealousy wouldn't be expressed properly. It wouldn't be seen as jealousy. When he puts it in man, it is properly seen. Therefore it can be seen if God is angry or not by the anger in the world, if jealous, by the jealousy in the world. He puts his anger and jealousy in the vessels that he made for destruction so that in the end, the wrath of God can be seen. Like Paul said, 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men" "Therefore God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts" God sends a strong delusion to make them believe what is false. 2 Th. 2:11. The godless believe they are animals. Why would God give us the spirit of mercy and peace and put his anger in them? God does it for his name's sake; Jesus Christ. Christ was destined before the foundation of the world but he was made manifest at the end of times for our sake. And we were born to be chosen. Like Peter said, 'chosen and destined by God the Father for obedience to Jesus Christ'. 1 Peter 1:2 God is our Father. His Spirit brought us to life, renewed in the knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ. A sparrow can't fall unless it is God's will. God directs everyone and everything. God knows every one and everything and if God brought you to life it's because you are the prodigal son. You were born into the world. You saw your condition and you turned back. And God is putting his ring on your finger and he is killing the fatted calf.

 

[unred typo]

MarkT wrote:

Twelve were chosen to be his disciples. You say the rest were blinded and sealed until after his death? I know everyone fell away except the disciples. I don't recall anyone who was sealed until after his death?

No, I didn’t specify that the disciples were the only ones who were not blind to the fact that Jesus Christ was the messiah. Anna and Simeon knew it when he was just a baby. Those who had enough faith in him to be healed must have believed in him. There were thousands in Acts God had elected to hear about the hope of the resurrection from the disciples after Jesus rose again. Jesus specifically warned several not to spread the news of his powers because his time was not yet come.



MarkT wrote:

I wouldn't disagree with you on the last part. But let's not get carried away with 'what if' and imagine we know what would have happened 'if'. We are talking about what did happen.

I wasn’t speculating. 1 Corinthians 2:8 says, “Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.†John 6:15 says, “When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.â€Â



MarkT wrote:

It only seems that way I suspect because the Trinity concept doesn't let you see it. The ones who saw him and heard him couldn't see him because of their teachers. They were following blind guides. They saw the Messenger but they couldn't see the message.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘a trinity concept.’ Please explain.

MarkT wrote:

The statements, as you refer to them, are the teachings of God. They are the words of the new covenant. It makes no difference that the statements were made locally and then preached to all the world. The promise is eternal. The teaching is true. Jesus said, 'it's my Father's will and it follows, I will do it.' The ones who saw him and heard him and who did not believe in him, didn't know him because they followed false teachers and that's why God wouldn't let them see him. Jesus is the bread of life and the teaching is true because the Teacher is true. His words are spirit and life. I agree everything happened according to prophecy according to the will of God.

When Jesus said all the Father had given him would come to him, he was talking about those people who God had chosen to be part of the crowd following him and those who were the fulfillment of messianic prophesies during his short ministry on earth. They were those privileged to be ‘listening ears’ and ‘seeing eyes’ during Jesus’ teaching and miracle working for the time of his earthly appearance. It was not even given to all the elect nation of Israel, but only a selected few who were more faith filled and God-believing were chosen to receive healing and understanding.

Besides the disciples, there were a few thousand that believed in him in spite of his humble form. Not all recognized him for who he was even though they all should have. Some cities were upbraided for their lack of faith, in fact. As you say, false teaching was one of the reasons for this. After the resurrection, however, the invitation was widened to include not only all the nation of Israel, but ‘whosoever would’ could come. The kingdom of God can be within you. God poured out his spirit on all flesh and everyone is taught of God, though most continue to be dull of hearing by their own choice to this very day.

 

[MarkT]

When Jesus said all the Father had given him would come to him, he was talking about those people who God had chosen to be part of the crowd following him and those who were the fulfillment of messianic prophesies during his short ministry on earth. They were those privileged to be ‘listening ears’ and ‘seeing eyes’ during Jesus’ teaching and miracle working for the time of his earthly appearance. It was not even given to all the elect nation of Israel, but only a selected few who were more faith filled and God-believing were chosen to receive healing and understanding.

They were drawn in the flesh to see him but they were not drawn by his words. In fact they were repelled by them. So Jesus was not talking about them. He was talking to them; so that his words would fall on everyone, the good and the bad, like the rain falls on everyone. I agree they were there by the will of God; that is God directed their steps to be there. But first you say they were chosen to be there and then you say everyone chooses to be where they are. Did they choose to not see with their heart, to fulfill the prophecy, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn to me to heal them.'? No. God blinded them.